going to keep voting on those resolutions again and again and again. >> on wednesday, keir starmer appears to discuss domestic and foreign policy issues during premise or question time. watch it live from london starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two, c-span now, our mobile app, or online at c-span.org. >> in a divided media world, one place brings americans together. according to a new research report, nearly 90 million americans turn to c-span. they are almost perfectly balanced. 28% conservative, 27% liberal or

progressive, 41% moderate. republicans watching democrats, democrats watching republicans, moderates watching all sides. because c-span viewers want the facts straight from the source. no commentary. no agenda. just democracy, unfiltered. every day on the c-span networks. >> energy secretary chris wright talks about his agency's budget request during a hearing with a committee on capitol hill. he also addresses the state of the energy market and the u.s.-iran conflict, as well as the role of artificial intelligence in the energy sector. >> good morning. the committee will come to order. we will hear from chris wright

as we discussed between 27 budget for the department of energy. welcome, secretary. there are a few policy areas where reality asserts itself faster than it does in the field of energy. you can dress it up with slogans, paper it over with subsidies, but sooner or later, demand rises and the system will ask whether supply can answer the call of demand. during the biden administration, energy policy shifted away from reliability and toward favorite sources, favorite outcomes, and long, brittle supply chains, again, overseas. they assumed the system would hold together anyway, and it did not. in the final months of the biden administration, nearly $90 billion in loans, were pushed out the door in just a matter of a few weeks, along with a significant volume of grant funding.

in one of his final actions, the public earmarked billions of dollars in green energy loans to utility companies based in secretary's home in michigan. despite warnings from the department's very own inspector general who called for the program to be paused over conflict of interest concerns. that, mr. secretary, was that status of the department that you inherited. and i applaud your decision to review those projects. under your leadership, there has been significant project -- progress getting the country back with energy. refocusing on research and development, prioritizing energy sources, that can deliver energy reliably, predictably, immediately, when demand is high, not just when conditions are most favorable.

that shift is welcome and necessary. the recent storm gave us a reminder of what is at stake because went demand spikes, there is no margin for error. beaver -- either the system performs and provides energy at the moment it is needed to the degree is needed, or it does not. i look forward to hearing from you today on what has worked and on what doesn't work. and also on what changes are necessary before the next big test arrives because we never know when the next big test might occur. there will be a next test and another one after that an endless succession of other tests following that. the demand people often speak of has in fact arrived. it will not wait for us to get comfortable. data centers, advanced manufacturing, and the push for electrification are all factors that are driving demand even higher.

if we are serious about competing in the global ai arms race and other energy intensive endeavors, we are going to need a lot more dependable power, not intermittently, not when conditions are ideal or when they cooperate, but when it is needed at the moment it is needed. it brings me to the energy dominance finance tax cuts after the past last year. the program enables the department of energy to finance projects that restart idled infrastructure, increase output of existing facilities, and build new sources of dispatch willpower. it can upgrade so it can produce more power, replacing retired infrastructure with new capacity. strengthening transmissions of electricity can actually move

from where it is generated to where it is needed in the moment. we will learn more about your vision for the program and how you intend to keep it focused on projects that strengthen the grid rather than repeating the same old, tired, rushed, last-minute decisions that undermine confidence in the past and lead to great unreliability. secretary, the task before us is demanding, to put it mildly. the united states needs an energy grid, an entire system that can meet the rising demand without dependence on others to fill in the gaps. i have utmost confidence in you and your ability to get the job done. and i look forward to your testimony. so again, thank you for being here mr. secretary. i would like to recognize my friend and colleague, ranking democrat mr. heimlich for his opening statement.

>> over the past year, i have grown increasingly disappointed with the department of energy's -- i asked you if it was the case that political appointees were on the review boards for the cancellation of $3.7 billion in awards. you responded, it is absolutely -- actions under your leadership. when you came before this committee almost a year ago i asked you if it was the case that political appointees were on review boards for the cancellation of 3.7 billion dollars in awards. you responded, well, it is absolutely the case. those are your words. since then it has become abundantly clear that politics are indeed calling the shots in your department of energy. last october doe unlawfully canceled eight billion dollars in federal investments. in 223 energy projects. almost entirely in states with democratic leadership. doe then confirmed in federal court that the cancellations were based on whether a project was in a blue state. satisfying a president's desire for political revenge or intimidation is not a lawful

basis for terminating projects that were on track to help reduce soaring electricity prices. and a federal judge has already said as much, ruling that these cancellations were unlawful and they violated the fifth amendment. these cancellations on a political basis are a blatant betrayal of the communities, workers, and businesses who are counting on those investments to lower their energy costs. and now it is those communities, workers, and businesses who will pay the price, regardless of their particular politics. unfortunately, this budget reflects the same lack of concern for the real costs facing hard-working families trying to keep the lights on and their vehicles on the road. for example, this budget eliminates the weatherization assistance program, which saves households on average $372 every year. it also rescinds 15.2 billion dollars of infrastructure bill funding congressionally-directed funds that are ready to go out the door to support grid reliability and help reduce

electricity prices. it cuts the office of science by 15% and cuts arpa by 43 percent, undermining the very innovation pipeline that makes the united states of america so competitive. and it eliminates the wind and solar office entirely while cutting the critical minerals and energy innovation office by 64%. as electricity demand grows we will not be able to meet the energy needs of new data centers and keep household bills stable if you restrict the growth of the sources of energy that are the cheapest and fastest to build. this administration is also hurting families by holding back billions of congressionally-appropriated funds that would help people save on their electricity bills.

congress appropriated a .8 billion dollars for home energy rebates to help families lower the utility bills through more efficient appliances and home upgrades. while 12 states have launched programs and are delivering real savings to their residence, the department of energy has stalled implementation for the remaining states, including those approved applications for over a year and a half. that is obstruction. and while these cost-saving programs are being obstructed, the department is taking actions that actively raise prices. under your leadership doe has abused emergency authority under section 202 c of the federal power act to keep uneconomic fossil fuel plants online past the retirement dates. half of these are not even generating electricity. and according to a recent report keeping these plants open has cost americans 270 $5 million and counting.

that is not reliability. that is waste. and your department's insistence on propping up coal plants does not end there. you also are willfully defying congressional direction by redirecting funds for carbon capture toward subsidizing coal plants, raising serious concerns that the department may be violating the law. secretary wright, if you want to change the law, run for congress. until then you have no right to ignore the direction of congress. it is your responsibility to execute the law, and right now you are not faithfully executing the law. my concerns come at a moment when doe's mission is more critical than ever. not just here at home, but abroad. from global energy markets affected by the war in iran, to instability in venezuela, the department's decisions have real consequences for energy prices and national security.

which makes the pattern we have seen over the past year all the more troubling, because instead of lowering costs, strengthening our workforce, and investing in energy infrastructure, too many of these decisions favor garnering cheap political points. now, you and i may disagree on the path forward. i'm sure we will. we ought to agree on this. americans deserve lower energy costs. americans deserve a department of energy that follows the law and executes the will of congress. this budget and the actions we have seen over the past year fall short of that standard. chair lee: thank you, senator heinrich. secretary wright, i will now turn to you for your opening statement. the written statement you submitted to the committee will also be made part of the record. you may proceed. sec. wright: chairman lee, ranking member heinrich, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today the president's fiscal year 2028 -- 20 budget.

-- 2027 budget for the department of energy. under the president's leadership, we have put the department back on mission, delivering reliable, affordable, and secure energy for the american people. let me highlight what that looks like. we have taken decisive steps to restore grid reliability. using emergency authorities under section 202 c of the federal power act we kept critical baseload generation online after doe analysis warned outage risk could increase up to one hundredfold by 2030 due to supply shortfalls. this action and the market response to our action preserve 17 gigawatts of critical generation for the american people. hundreds of american lives were saved by these actions during

winter storm fern. historic called job heating and electricity demand. dispatch full energy, natural gas, coal, hydro, antinuclear with the mvps of the grid. in new england that peak demand hydrocarbons, hydro, antinuclear provided 95% of power. wind, solar, and batteries combined provided 2%. less than burning wood and trash. the lesson? when reliability is on the line dispatch full energy shows up. we have worked to establish american energy leadership globally. since president trump ended the previous administration's reckless lng export approval band the department has approved more than 19 bcf a day of export authorizations, which is more than america's entire capacity on inauguration day last january. the united states is the global leader in lng exports and will become even more dominant under president trump's leadership. this is a win for america, a win for our allies, a win for energy

security, and a blow to our allies. we are advancing national security at home and abroad. from day one president trump has focused on delivering prosperity at home in peace abroad. occasionally, power must be projected to create long-term peace. american national security is anchored by our nuclear deterrent. d.o.a.'s administration is honored by this mission to ensure a safe, secure, and effective deterrent against new and evolving threats. today it is delivering more new weapons. seven warhead modernization programs and plutonium pits than any time since the cold war. we are driving a nuclear power renaissance. our efforts span next-generation reactor pilot programs, reestablishing a clear enrichment capacity and domestic nuclear fuel fabrication and a pathway to spend fuel permanent storage.

i'm proud to share that we will have multiple advanced reactor prototypes critical by america's 250th birthday. we are driving hard to be meet president trump's goal of dribbling nuclear capacity to 400 gigawatts by 2050. this ensures nuclear energy will play a central role in powering america's re-industrialization and leadership in ai. our budget request reaffirms our commitment to cleaning up nuclear waste endemic communities that carried the weight of america's earliest nuclear programs. we are bringing professional management and innovation to enhance cleanup efforts while seeking to redevelop winged upsides like portsmouth, paducah, hanford, and others. we launched the genesis mission to bring ai's immense promise to scientific and technological innovation. in our nations history we have seen two great scientific mobilizations. the world war ii manhattan

project and the apollo space program. the genesis mission is the third. genesis mission is focused on the most difficult scientific challenges of our time. quantum computing, fusion energy, advanced materials development, and human health. we are partnering where industry alone cannot go, tackling long-term challenges that require national commitment, bringing together our national laboratories, universities, and private industry to accelerate scientific discovery. we are winning the ai race and lowering energy costs. leveraging department-owned land and assets we are enabling rapid -- deployment of large-scale computer capacity through public -private partnerships. we are working with communities to ensure these projects adhere to the president's important rate payers protection pledge, to rapidly expend our electricity grid and end the biden administration's ruinous rise in electricity prices.

we are securing critical minerals. we have strategically reorganized, consolidating five offices into a single office of critical minerals and energy innovation. this creates one hub across d.o.a. the national labs and external partners to manage the full supply chain, from mining and processing, to magnets and batteries. we have committed $1 billion in existing funding to strengthen domestic supply chains, reduce reliance on foreign adversaries, and reassure american manufacturing. we are restoring fiscal discipline. we inherited a department that prioritized political objectives over energy security. the restructured office of energy dominance financing is correcting that. we reviewed every loan commitment of taxpayer dollars, restructuring or eliminating over $80 billion in loans. more than 80% of the biden-era loan portfolio and are redirecting that capital toward projects that strengthen reliability and american energy

production, including an historic $26 billion loan to the southern company that will lower costs and expand great capacity in multiple states. finally, we are preparing for the future. trillions of dollars are being invested in american infrastructure, from manufacturing and ai data centers. meeting this moment requires abundant, reliable, and secure energy. that is exactly what this budget delivers. i am honored to lead this effort for president trump and to work with this committee to strengthen america's energy future. chair lee: thank you. we will now proceed to five-minute rounds of questions. i will start with senator heinrich and then we will go back and forth between republicans and democrats in order of seniority. the department of energy's

office of inspector general investigated the biden administration's loan program's office. in some of the decisions it made, particularly in that last period between the november 2024 election and january 20, 2025. while no formal ethics charges were filed the ig report that resulted from that inquiry does seem to substantiate that the prior director of the loan program office violated standards of ethical conduct by giving preferential treatment to a friendly company. while also misusing his position in order to create the appearance of government sanctioned or endorsement of a clean energy group. these allegations are especially concerning, especially when you consider this point we have mentioned before, that the biden department of energy issued nearly $90 billion in loan guarantees just between election day in 2024 and inauguration day in 2025. what steps in the energy -- within your department is the energy dominance financing office taking in order to solicit loan guarantee obligations without breaching the standards?

-- sec. wright: frankly, that track record you just laid out, and digging into the details of those was quite alarming. to obligate $90 billion in a rushed, haphazard way. let me point out one or two other things. have an excellent team at the dominance financing office. too professionals that have spent their careers lending money in a thoughtful, serve away so they could return money. in all of the loans done in the four years of the biden administration we have yet to find one reference in loan documents, justifications about the cost of energy. none of the money was lent to reduce the price of energy for american consumers, which is pretty shocking for us as the

united states department of energy. chair lee: it's part of your mission, isn't it? sec. wright: it is part of our mission. it is part of the central mission of energy infrastructure, is to make people's lives better by giving them affordable energy so they can afford to pay their bills. and so businesses can locate in your state, in your country and bring jobs and opportunities to the citizens there. so all of our loans are focused number one on, will this deployment of capital lower the

cost of energy and increase the available energy -- energy available for american citizens and businesses? it is quite a different shop today. chair lee: thank you. let's talk about section 202c, emergency orders. department has issued a number of them, keeping critical gas and coal generation online at moments when demand is peaking. can you talk to us about this authority and how important it is for maintaining, especially when reliable coal, gas, and nuclear units have been forced off-line due to environmental regulations? and a number of other policies favoring intermittent electric power generation rather than baseload power? sec. wright: the previous administration -- and we talked about it -- spent an enormous amount of resources for electricity sources that work some of the time but you are not sure when. when we heard less about was with -- they spent massive efforts to force the closure of reliable, dispatch will energy forces. both legs of that stool is why electricity prices rose almost 30% under the biden administration with no increase in electric production capacity.

one of the first things we did was study the electric grid and say, what is going to happen if we continue this trajectory going forward? there was a plan for another 100 gigawatts of dispatch bulk -- meaning it is there when you need to capacity, to be closed in the subsequent five years, and a plan to build only 22 gigawatts of replacement. a net reduction of 78 gigawatts. as artificial intelligence is arriving and reassuring manufacturing, this analysis we did showed blackouts would be 100 times more likely five years from now -- well, five years from last year -- than they were at that time. have already seen after 100 years of the electricity grid eating cheaper on an inflation-adjusted basis and more reliable we have seen a reversal of these critical trends. not just us.

the national energy reliability council described the american electric grid when we took office as a five-alarm fire. chair lee: so not just 100% more likely, but 100 times? meaning 1000% more likely? sec. wright: meaning 10,000 times more likely. chair lee: thank you. senator heinrich. sen. heinrich: secretary wright, on television earlier this week you said that as prices may not fall below three dollars a gallon until 2027. do you stand that today? -- stand by that today? sec. wright: i don't know the future of energy prices. often i will speculate or look at those things. i would say gasoline prices, it looks like they peaked a week or so ago. one dollar a gallon cheaper than they peaked in the biden administration, yet we are in the midst of ending a 47-your conflict in the middle east, a major energy producing region. sen. heinrich: is over four dollars a gallon. is that a reasonable -- do you

think that is a good price for people to pay at the pump? sec. wright: well, in contrast to the last administration our goal is as low as possible of energy prices. we were glad to have gasoline prices below 2000 gallon this year. i look for to getting them back there. sen. heinrich: what are they right now? sec. wright: just over four dollars. sen. heinrich: and what is diesel? sec. wright: just over five dollars. sen. heinrich: it is closer to six dollars in my state. sec. wright: it is over eight dollars in california. sen. heinrich: you have used emergency orders to keep thermal plants online. in indiana, colorado those thermal plants are sitting idle. however, those utilities have already purchased replacement generation. so, when they are ordered to stay online, effectively customers are charged for the costs of maintaining those thermal facilities.

plus, they are charged for the price of replacement generation, because those utilities had to come up with replacement generation for the decided to retire those facilities. is it appropriate to pass those costs onto consumers? shouldn't the department of energy be responsible for those costs? $42 million in the case of the michigan plant? sec. wright: it is hard to overstate the cost to health and businesses and consumers of blackouts. mentioned the michigan plant. the first one we issued -- sen. heinrich: the state of michigan and the utility completely disagree with your conclusion that they were at risk. sec. wright: days later -- days later, after we kept the coal power plant running, it was running at maximum capacity and they were at the edge of a black upper northern mice it was one of the most at risk regions there is. that plant has run over that entire summer above average for

all assets on the grid. sen. heinrich: what about the colorado plan? how often does the -- has the colorado plant run? sec. wright: it is in a region that suffers with transmission bottlenecks. if that plant is not there, if a peak demand event comes to that region they are at high risk of knocked out. we want the lights to stay on. sen. heinrich: liability is nonnegotiable, however, i have had co-ops come and complain about those costs being passed on to them when, you know, replacement generation has already been purchased. so, my concern is, if you are to declare an emergency, should you be able to pass those costs onto the customer? sec. wright: the benefits go to the customers as well. let me explain one other point. he abused 202 c's for a certain

number of gigawatts of coal. a much larger increment of slated coal closures were not closed because of the utilities got the message, you are going to have our back, because state and other politicians were forcing us to close assets we don't want to close. we are not going to close them, then. sen. heinrich: i don't think it was politicians who decided to close the plant, i think it was the utility. the department of energy appears to have also repurposed funds that congress appropriated specifically for carbon capture. also two subsidized coal-fired plants. what statutory authority allows you to move those dollars? i could not find anything in the statute that allowed those to be reallocated. it is the authority you are using to reallocate those funds? sec. wright: we have continued to look at proposals for carbon capture on coal plants when we find one or ones that make economic sense.

we will deploy those funds, but we cannot ploy on plants that are closed and gone. so, these were funds targeted at enhancing coal plants. we are enhancing them to keep them open. sen. heinrich: if you want to spend funds on keeping those open you need funds that are authorized to keep those plants open, which does not exist. you're changing the authority without any statutory basis. sec. wright: there are funds that are dedicated to enhancing the operations of coal plants and we are deploying them to enhance the operation of coal plants. sen. heinrich: i think you are on very thin legalize. chair lee: senator hoeven. sen. hoeven: i appreciate your service very much. the shale play is helping to take this country from domestic production of oil from 5 million barrels a day to almost 14 million barrels a day.

we all know how important that is. when i started as governor in 2000 we started a real push to crack the code on the shale play, to produce oil from the shale. you were one of the pioneers there and you and others made it happen. you know, we see that result. again, energy security is national security and we want to continue to produce more from all sources. oil, gas, coal, renewables, everything, right? renewable. it is in the interest of our country. now we find ourselves in a situation where we need to do it again. what we are seeing is that without enhanced oil recovery in the shale play we are starting to decline. in north dakota we drove our production up from less than 100,000 barrels a day up to 1.5 million barrels a day. that rivals some of the opec countries. just north dakota.

now we are sliding back. we are down 1.1 million barrels a day, and we need to use enhanced oil recovery. we are only getting about 10% and if that shale rock. billions of barrels there. and we can do it with enhanced oil recovery. one of the key ways we can do it helps with the very issue you and the ranking member just got done talking about. dispatch bowl coal-fired electricity. we take the co2 off the coal plants, extending the life of those plants, we put it down hole, and double our production. north dakota, we produced about 6 billion barrels. we can usually produce 6 billion and more. that would be less than 25% of the oil. we have to crack the code 2.0. that is the major initiative in our state right now. but i am determined to drive. places like texas and in new mexico in places like the marcellus shale. pennsylvania and ohio. need to do that.

we have a huge demonstration project showing we can do this at scale. we have these small projects showing we can do it, but we have a large demonstration project in north dakota. have about five companies participating. we have north dakota participating and we have you at doe participating. and we are going to show we can do it at scale. we are using rich gas, migrating to co2, then using the tax credit and others want to be doing this with our coal-fired electric plants and oil and gas companies and this could take us to the whole next level. you are a key player in the middle of it. you have been out there to our environmental research center. you have seen it. you are helping us drive this. we have worked through the project as of -- i'm also on the energy appropriations committee. notified by omb they have signed off and it has been sent up to congress now for the 30-day congressional notification.

that happened on april 2. we are looking as of may 2 we should be able to jump on this thing and go forward and make it happen. i want you to talk about that for a minute or two. i think this is a huge thing not just for us, but the country, and you are a key player in making it happen. sec. wright: i agree very much with your comment. you put it with heart and passion in the context centered in north dakota. it is not just gigantic for north dakota, it is gigantic for the united states. the shale revolution transformed the energy situation of our country in both oil and natural gas and natural gas liquids. we need that next-generation shale revolution to increase recovery. as you call it, vulcan 2.0. i started my career working in oil and gas production in california in the 1980's in fields that started producing in

the 1910s and they were continually reinvented with different technologies. california used to be our largest oil-producer. 40% of american oil at one point came from california. today it is only 2%. they have gone the wrong direction. in north dakota and new mexico have gone the right direction, with new energy technology, shale production changing the game. but we need a shale to point out. we need to figure out enhanced recovery to increase that recovery. we are starting out in the balkans shale and you make another great point to close the discussion i had briefly with senator heinrich. if we can figure out co2 as a major player in an enhanced oil recovery we add -- he closes the loop economically on carbon capture from coal plants. that now they become viable so that the plant can continue to

run in the long run. both generating a reduced amount of electricity because the energy to capture the co2, but captured co2 adds economic value and everybody wins. right sen. hoeven: on. i'm the kind of person who never says, well, in a horse race. new mexico has edged a little bit ahead of north dakota in daily barrels of oil production and we have to reclaim that late. i know texas is pretty far ahead. probably not going to catch them, but we are hot behind new mexico. if you know anybody from new mexico let them know we are looking to overtake them again. thank you for your very important efforts. sec. wright: thank you, senator. chair lee: senator wyden. sen. wyden: thank you, chairman. energy demand. you said repeatedly it is about people and math. now, a few months later you and the president, throw most of the clean energy tax credits in the garbage can and took a wrecking

ball to wind and solar projects. here's my question. when energy demand is up, supply is tight. manufacturing is down. in utility costs are going through the roof. why would you continue this ideological crusade against clean energy that clearly is not working? sec. wright: so, senator, thanks for reminding me of my words last year that energy is about humans and math. that is exactly why the republicans in this administration has followed those policies. because if you look at the 28 states across the country that have renewable portfolio standards, which means mandates

for a certain amount of wind and solar and mandates to close reliable capacity, those states on average have 50% higher electricity prices than the other 22 states that have not followed those policies. there is a role for wind and solar. there is a role. but when it is mandated, forced, and subsidized -- sen. wyden: will would you do to have a role for wind and solar today? you are saying there is a role. we had a role with clean energy tax credits and the private sector loved the fact that they were technologically neutral. were voluntary. there were no mandates and you pull that up by the roots over the opposition of people in natural gas, of all industries, who said, look, we love gas, but we also need renewable, clean energy, and you pulled it up. why don't you do something now? sec. wright: the subsidies -- the production tax credit for

wind power pays from the federal government four cents per kilowatt hour of production that comes from a wind turbine. what happens when the wind blows now? the wind picks up, there is more wind power, we turn down natural gas plants, which are the firming agent in the grid almost everywhere else, and we save two cents in reduced natural gas prices. we pay a four cents subsidy and save two cents, then we have utility pays its compensation to the wind power company. those subsidies have distorted our electricity market. sen. wyden: what you are describing is fiction. the natural gas industry said publicly in speeches they wanted clean energy because of demand and ai and you turned them down. my second question is this. it deals with wildfire and grid resilience. my home state is looking right now at one of the toughest fire seasons in modern history. it is documented that outdated power infrastructure is a major factor in these wildfires. i think we would agree with that. i wrote the disaster save power

grid law in 21 to maintain and improve -- improve existing lines and lower wildfire risk. past with the bipartisan infrastructure bill. but over the last year -- and this is where i am baffled by what you were doing -- you all held up on funding for many of those projects. you kept it locked in a government bank account instead of distributing it to communities that are working hard to deal with what looks like a record fire season. will you let those go and actually let us help our communities? sec. wright: absolutely. we have worked hard to evaluate all of the projects in grid resilience, great improvement, great expansion. we have gone forward with lots of them. we have modified other ones. we share your passion and interest. sen. wyden: when i have a list of the -- could i have a list of the project you will like go? because this is urgent is this. -- business. can you give me a list of the

projects you will like go now? sec. wright: i believe we released a list of 10 days ago but we will get you all of the once specific to the northwest delivered to your office in the near term. sen. wyden: the next two weeks? sec. wright: yes. chair lee: senator barrasso. sen. barrasso: you are always welcome in hawaii. you know about our abundant energy resources. we are america's energy breadbasket. our -- our energy resources are -- affordability, and i did want to ask about the department of energy's efforts to unleash coal production. could you talk a little bit about that? sec. wright: yes. you bet. most of my life people loved to hate coal, and as a person who, as senator wyden pointed out, who believes that energy is about people and math, i look at where the world gets energy, how that changes with time. coal has been the largest source of mobile electricity since the data began.

we have pretty good data starting in 1900. coal is 125-zero in how many years they have led the world in electricity production. i'm pretty confident coal will lead the world in global electricity production when i die. so, coal is critically important to the world. in the united states for most all of american history it was the largest source of electricity generation in the united states. it has been attacked by politics, by government, by regulations. some of them toward cleaner. most of them were trying to strangle in industry coal. i will point out in this cold storm firmly had in the east the two things that kept people alive for natural gas and coal. nuclear played a central role. it was not impacted by the weather where wind and solar when on vacation. nuclear was rocksteady, but coal electric production rose 25%

during that storm versus the same week year ago. and natural gas rose also. that is why we kept people alive. if we had closed those plans people would have died. he pushed the grid to the edge. coal kept things alive and around. of course, we are looking at projects where there is existing coal infrastructure that they want to make upgrades. we are getting cofounding with the partners where their funding and larger chunk of the money and we are matching their money to extend the life of these coal plants. if we don't extend the life of these coal plants we will continue to have ruinous rises in our electricity prices, we will not be able to meet the challenge of re-showing manufacturing and ai. coal is central to global energy and critical to american energy. sen. barrasso: could i ask you what we are doing to expand rare earth mining in the united states? sec. wright: it was one of the reasons i was in your great state of wyoming.

among these coal seams are significant deposits of rare earth elements. of course, you have to have both the elements in place and you have to have a state where have an environment where you can permit things and move forward. wyoming checks those boxes. as a great state where you can deploy funds and energy. we have through our critical minerals and energy innovation office and number of partnership progress. the department of war has a lot of projects. we have a whole administration effort trying to figure out how we can quickly stand up a supply chain in our country of mining, and number of which will be done in wyoming. processing of those, manufacturing of magnets. china has had a struggle hold over the united states in this area. everything with a button on it, every device with a button on it has rare earth elements inside it. we get a most all of those from china. -- almost all of those from china. even the little bit we mined in california we were sending to china to process. we need to reverse and change

that and we are hard at work at that task. sen. barrasso: you mentioned the word permitting. this committee has been working on that. we had a chairman and ranking member committed to that. i think it would be a big win for everyone. a key goal for me is eliminating administrative barriers and unleashing energy production. i think it has to provide certainty for people who apply for permits to spread the domestic energy development. what do you view as a top priority in permitting reform? sec. wright: we got to make it easier to build things in america. build big things in america. my choice is, businesses should choose what they want to build. i don't believe that is the government's choice, but we need to make it easier for businesses to get permits to build big things in america. certainly one of the things that has hurt our energy system the most recently has been the inability to build interstate natural gas pipelines. these are water permits, the six states of new england pay wildly higher electricity prices and they should, because one state, new york, decided not to give

this water permit to two critical pipelines eight years ago. i believe we will get those two pipelines completed. in thio -- in this administration. you need a reasonable window of time to get a permit and then you need certainty when you get permits. we need republicans and democrats to come together to sen. king: to follow up on senator barrasso's questions, do you feel that certainty is important in permitting, and that is an important quality we need to be able to move permitting faster, that is correct, isn't it? sec. wright: yes. sen. king: how do you feel about offshore wind projects being canceled that were fully permitted and under construction?

what does that say about certainty for investment? sec. wright: i will come back -- there is some complexities to that issue, both with security concerns with drones that we learned more recently on the wars -- sen. king: isn't that a risk of the developer? sec. wright: it is a risk i think we need to manage with the developer, just to make sure we are not introducing a critical vulnerability off of our east coast population. but to your broader point, yes, senator, i believe we need the parties to come together, we need a robust dialogue about that, and we need to deliver more certainty -- sen. king: as a former developer, the idea of getting all of your permits, going to the process, being under construction and having the government say you can't do this, you wouldn't like that very much if you are in that position, is that correct? sec. wright: that is correct. sen. king: you have spent a lot of time this morning disparaging wind and solar and interruptible power. the market doesn't seem to agree with you. this year, according to the

energy information administration, we are talking about increases in capacity, electrical capacity predictions. 51% wind, 28% battery storage. i'm sorry, 51% solar, 28% battery storage. 11% wind. natural gas, 6%. in other words, the market is saying, solar, wind, and storage is where the action is, and i would commend to you an article in forbes on february 26 talking about texas. no subsidies, pure economics, and they have gone from -- let's see -- solar, 2% in 2020. 14% in 2025. storage has doubled in the last year and a half. that is the market telling us these technologies work. and are economic. we are not talking about texas as being a blue state and lots of climate concerns. this is pure economics.

sec. wright: well, there is two responses to that. one is, there is huge subsidies in place for the building of wind and solar that are still in place. if you start a project today and finish it in the next two years, you are going to get 10 years of subsidies. so, yes, there is very strong federal subsidies that have encouraged this buildout of wind and solar. anything that is going into service this year was started during the biden administration, where basically the only thing you could get permits for to build were wind, solar, and batteries. there is a lot of distortions in that data. i think if you look at where new capital is going, you are going to see a very different survey. you will see natural gas is by far the lead. you will see solar still as a significant player and storage as a significant player as well. so, senator king, our views overlap a lot. absolutely there is roles for multiple energy sources. my passion is to get rid of the market-distorting subsidies for

intermittent resources. let them compete in the marketplace. sen. king: we will see how the marketplace responds. we will have this other conversation in another year or so. sec. wright: yes. sen. king: here is my concern about the budget. just a policy, and some of the cuts that are made in your budget are concerning. basic research, 15% cut. fracking came out of basic research at the department of energy. the federal government is uniquely positioned to support basic research that does not have an immediate commercial payoff, and it concerns me that there are cuts in that, in arpa e. 43% cuts, cuts to caesar, which is the grid reliability. those cuts to me don't make any sense. they are in the wrong places. sec. wright: so, in the science budget i think you were referring to in the start, there actually is no proposed cut. it is just part of it is in ai

and quantum computing. the science budget is breaking into two pieces. our request for the budget is up -- up 1% from last year. i agree with you, it is critically important, and i want to work with you on that. for arpa e, our budget request this year is up 1% from last year. it is below the actual enacted last year. you work with us to plot that up. i hope you will do that again with us this year too. i share your passion about basic science. i don't want to shrink that. about high risk early-stage projects in arpa e, i am a believer in those things as well, and the caesar office, also important. i think it is more visual than not real cuts proposed as well. sen. king: we can pursue those numbers. when i see less dollars this year than last year, i would call that a cut. thank you, mr. chairman. sec. wright: thank you, senator. chair lee: senator cassidy, you next. sen. cassidy: how are you?

sec. wright: i am well, senator. sen. cassidy: aluminum, steel, fertilizer, as we both know, it has been thousands of dollars complying with the clean air act standards, not particulate matter. we made this investment, they made some of the cleanest industrial products in the world, but china will not enforce those regulations, may lower manufacturing costs. as much as 20%. our jobs moved there, their economy is stronger, they use that strong economy to support the military. it is a bad cycle. now, to make it worse, there is at least 85 counties in the united states designated as being non-attainment, partly due to foreign-produced pollution. chinese pollution contributes between 8% and 28% of the sulfur dioxide found in the western united states. it is the worst of all worlds.

they get our jobs, economic growth, support their military, we get the pollution, and our counties cannot address, they cannot increase industrial development, because they are non-attainment from people polluting across the pacific. sec. wright: yes. sen. cassidy: so, can the national labs -- let me start over. i have a foreign emissions fee act which tasked the d.o.e. with providing the technical expertise to calculate emissions products. intensity for covered products. in medicine, there is an adage, "that which is measured is addressed." when we measure at 8% to 26% of soho dioxide is coming from overseas to our counties and should be addressed. so, can the national labs do this with existing resources? or do they require new investment? sec. wright: i believe we can do this with existing resources, and we are in dialogues and efforts to get these things going. i love your comment about that which is measured is addressed.

in my home state of colorado several years ago, they decided to stop considering flowing in from other states of emissions into colorado. why did they decide to do that? those pollutants are just as real as any others. because it drove more -- it allowed more regulation of industry and more reduction of business activities. leading to this unvirtuous cycle you were talking about. you just export your industry to somewhere else. ultimately you add to pollution and export your jobs. i share your passion for this topic. sen. cassidy: it really rips off the working american who is counting on that economic development. now, as the department develops the methodology for measuring intensity, emissions intensity, are we getting the full picture?

we know that sox and nox, particulate matter is in an ecosystem that includes carbon. if you take care of one, you sometimes lower the other -- in fact, you almost always lower the other. you are using coal as a feedstock. we both know that. still, to what degree can we be sure that the methodology is getting the full picture of that which is involved here? sec. wright: you are right. it has become apparent states in the federal government have used pollution regulations now relate to go after greenhouse gas emissions. they have turned them so low that it is not going to change the ambient background pollution in our states and air, but they do it because it is another way to have a backdoor carbon tax in our country. i know you are talking about the other side. how can we more accurately count what happens overseas in their production of things, both pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions? it is a complicated topic. you have to follow the supply chain.

sen. cassidy: when we spend so much money controlling these emissions and they don't, we are putting our self in an economic disadvantage? sec. wright: economic disadvantage and an air quality disadvantage. sen. cassidy: and a national security disadvantage? sec. wright: all of the above. sen. cassidy: our foreign emissions fee uses carbon as a surrogate for these other matters? sec. wright: yes. sen. cassidy: instead of having this for sox, and that for nox, and that for particular data, we say, this is a fellow traveler, let's address a fellow traveler , and this is the flipside of what you said. they are going after particulate matter to go after this. if we measure that, which we are already doing, and we decreased our carbon emissions lower in absolute amounts relative to 1995, that is a plan to our advantage. any thoughts about using labs or developing, given the power to -- giving the president the

power to assess a fee on the emissions from overseas not using internationally accepted standards for controlling pollution? sec. wright: i share your passion to reassure manufacturing in this country and have environmental benefits by producing things with tighter environmental regulations then an exporting into areas that don't care about those pollutants. of course, they circle the globe. so, i absolutely share your mission and want to continue to work with you on your particular mechanism for the way to achieve that. but you and i are very aligned on this issue and it is important. it is not being addressed today. it is important and we have continued to outsource energy-intensive manufacturing out of our country, and no one wins by it. sen. cassidy: thank you. i yield. chair lee: thank you. senator gallego, you're next. sen. gallego: thank you for this hearing.

i want to start with a few top priorities for me. affordability for american families, transparency, and the plan that utilizes the resources available to us. this budget proposal contains plans to restructure the agency and impose productions to non-defense energy programs. that makes it important for us to have a clear understanding of what your priorities are and how these priorities will be administered. we definitely need to know how every energy dollars being spent and being spent wisely. removing taxes that could bring these costs down quickly. recent changes to the d.o.e.'s authorization new will react years are meant to streamline efforts to demonstrate new reactor designs, which i'm 100% for. there are concerns that d.o.e. has made these changes without adequate transparency, and that they may undermine public safety. there has been no explanation of the review process, no insight

into the review team that lead this effort, and no idea give n any additional steps doe would take to resolve potential conflicts could arise from these changes. when will d.o.e. provide an explanation of what changes have been made, why they have been made, and how they impact safety to uphold public trust in nuclear energy? sec. wright: thank you for the great question, senator. should hold a briefing for you and any others that want to hear , what have we done with nuclear relations? one thing for sure is it has been hand in hand with the nrc. we have detailed roughly 10 people from the regulatory commission to the d.o.e. to work with us on this certification we are doing for these research and test reactors, the reactors that will go critical this year. it is a collaborative effort within nrc. it is not reckless and

fast-moving and behind closed doors. it is highly technical, so i apologize if we have not communicated clearly what we are doing, but we would love to get together with you and any other senators interested in that and walk you through the decisions we are making and how we are doing it. sen. gallego: from what i understand, when talking to my colleagues, you have a fairly bipartisan consensus that we want to see nuclear be built, and we wanted to be done safely. if you can do a hearing or a briefing for all of us that are interested, or if you would like to expend those changes through correspondence, that would be appreciated. because, again, you have probably for the first time bipartisan support for nuclear energy. we want to talk about how this is a win for america, but we need to work with our colleagues, our constituents who are likely worried about the changes and with the thought process is, and the more information we have, the better

we can assist you. secondary question. this is very specific to arizona. we have 22 federally recognized tribes. the office is expanded the development of energy, which is very important to my tribes, which many of the houses do not have electricity. the proposal sites the office budget by 33%. the justification is to focus on secure energy infrastructure. if the department is telling tribes who have energy sources they should focus on while also cutting funding, does that conflict and why aren't tribes allow to determine what energy sources that work best for them, because in some areas of arizona, it is too expensive. some areas it can be carbon-based. giving them the sovereignty to figure that out is important. number two, if they don't have the resources and the assistance when you are cutting the budget of the office of energy by 33%, that is not feasible.

there is no alignment in what you claim you want and the outcomes that are going to come from the tribal communities. sec. wright: i share your concerns. a lifelong passage for me is getting access to bringing energy to disadvantaged or remote communities that are off the grid. we need to be able to bring solutions and partnerships and make efforts. the efforts have been a significant disappointment. very few. not just our administration but the previous administration. we have not been successful at finding projects, funding projects, and making them happen. sen. gallego: i don't disagree with that, but if we are going to move forward, cutting support especially for technical advice is going to be harder. there can be smarter ways to

build energy and build faster, but if you are cutting one-third of the capability for them to lean on some of that effort, you are creating a scenario that will not have good outcomes. i would love to make sure we change the direction of that. sec. wright: i understand your concerns. i look forward to following up on that. sen. gallego: thank you. chair lee: ok. senator hirono. sen. hirono: thank you, mr. chairman. sen. hirono: thank you. secretary wright, to negotiate a resolution to the war that president trump with iran, illegal war, he has sent vice president jd vance, steve witkoff, who is a realistic developer and the president's special envoy, along with the president's son-in-law jared kushner, who leads an investment firm managing billions in assets from saudi arabia, and none of these people have expertise on nuclear energy or nuclear weapons, and they are supposed to be negotiating on a nuclear deal with iran. right? does anyone from the department of energy going to be in the

room with the iranians with the vice president and others negotiating a new nuclear deal with iran? sec. wright: thank you for the question. we are in contact with all three of the parties you mentioned on the nuclear issue. what would be required, and how we might implement such a deal, so we are absolutely involved in that process. sen. hirono: is there a name or somebody with expertise from the energy department who is constantly in touch? who is that person? sec. wright: the number one person is me. i have a background in nuclear as well. people on the nonproliferation team have been engaged. we have a team that is focused on solutions to the iran situation. depending upon which way it goes. sen. hirono: does anyone have the kind of expertise that the secretary had when he participated in the jcpoa? sec. wright: absolutely. sen. hirono: who? sec. wright: our whole team of nuclear nonproliferation.

sen. hirono: i have some major skepticism about it, because these negotiations took a long time. it took a number of countries, and it was immediately torn up by the president. moving on. hawaii is increasing its use of renewables to have cheaper and cleaner sources of power, because hawaiian people paid the highest for energy. sec. wright: the highest. sen. hirono: thank you for acknowledging that. utility customers have been warned to expect power bills to rise up to 30% over the next several months due to the higher oil prices from president trump's war of choice. that is a $40 to $60 higher power bill every month for an average customer, on top of record amounts that we also pay

the most at the pump, if not, the most for gasoline. did you understand the harmful impact on energy prices for consumers in hawaii and the rest of the country and parts of the world, as a matter of fact, before the president launched his illegal war against iran? sec. wright: absolutely, senator. iran has been a threat to global energy supplies for 47 years. i think it was very clear-eyed that to solve this problem -- sen. hirono: mr. secretary, a lot of the energy provided is through the strait of hormuz , which was open and now it is closed. cause and effect. rising prices of oil, rising prices of energy. is that something that you did not contemplate happening before the president declared his illegal war? sec. wright: no, we knew exactly what would happen. sen. hirono: it does not seem like it, because the president does not know how to end this war and how to reopen the strait

of hormuz. sec. wright: will you repeat the question, senator? sen. hirono: are you telling me that you are involved in opening the strait of hormuz, so that energy prices which are directly impacted by the closure of the strait of hormuz is going to ease? are you directly involved in making that happen? sec. wright: look, i am the primary energy advisor to the president and have been discussing the iran situation and potential solutions since the day i will sworn in. sen. hirono: you mentioned you have some background in nuclear. i did not know that. i thought you were the ceo of an oil company. be that as it may, there is no end in sight with what i would call the illegal war. the reference to "the war of choice," what is that? an illegal war that the president declared. where is the end? are oil prices going to go down?

will people be able to look to the lowering of gasoline prices when you have people to fill up their cars, it costs $56 more. that is that the people cannot sustain. sec. wright: i agree with you. energy prices are higher than they have been before right now. they are still more than one dollar gallon cheaper than they were during the peak of the biden administration, and we are fixing a 47-year problem in the middle east that will increase the security of energy supplies after this war than before the war. sen. hirono: frankly, that is really hard -- chair lee: thank you. senator padilla. sen. padilla: welcome, secretary. i want to get to the bottom of a few things. ever since your first appearance before the committee as part of your confirmation hearing, the administration has talked a big game, declaring a golden era of energy dominance.

i recall a commitment that you shared with us, an accelerating scientific capability. but i contrast that rhetoric with the realities of the proposed budget, which seems to undermine those claims. so, secretary wright, you have said that our national labs are the forefront of innovation and the gemstone of our department. do you still believe that? sec. wright: absolutely. they are tremendous which is why our science budget is actually up slightly from this year to last year. sen. padilla: you claim that but the office cut its funding. earth and environmental systems science cut by 79%. high energy physics research cut by 17%. even some user facilities, which

are the backbone of the labs, are looking at over 50% cuts. you have claimed many times this affordable, reliable, secure energy for all americans is a top priority. how is it still a priority, given all these cuts? sec. wright: there is a separate line item in the office of science budget that is called aiq, artificial intelligence in quantum. that is all lab funding and that is all work done in the laboratories. we just brought it out as a separate category. in fact, i want to grow that category is much as i can. it accelerates scientific efforts. sen. padilla: a.i. is the magic wand? because a.i. does not magically create data. it does not create instruments or experiments. it can be used to crunch a whole lot of data, but not used to do the fundamental work that scientists and engineers do. let me point out also from the point out also from the proposed

-- let me point out also from the proposed budget, it cuts the office of electricity by 22% , including 61% from transmission planning. we should be looking at how to invest more in our transportation capacity in the united states. it cuts 40% from energy storage , which has been a solution to the intermittency challenge that our chairman has outlined so frequently. it is critical for liability, not just in california but across the country. it cuts 17% from resilient distribution systems, when we need to be working on more resiliency, not less. it cuts 18% from the office of cyber security, energy security, an emergency response. how does this help us feel better about the reliability of the grid? sec. wright: a.i. is a tool that enhances our ability to do studies. -- grid studies of new load

interconnections. it was to be very slow, very labor-intensive. we can do that much faster now. you are right, it is even more important than ever, but the fact that we are cutting does not mean we have a deficiency. designed is just a re-categorization of part of it. sen. padilla: we will see. anyone who has filled their car with gas sees nothing but increased prices. let me bring the conversation to the budget. -- to one specific project. i understand the unprecedented review of 2000 department of energy projects has finally concluded. in the process of reviewing all these projects, i assume no laws were violated in that review. sec. wright: that's a good assumption. sen. padilla: ok. and the file decisions and determinations of which projects

are allowed to move forward versus not that all the applicable laws were complied with. sec. wright: yes, to the best of my own knowledge. yes. sen. padilla: ok. well, let me bring to your attention that as a result of this review, the administration has taken steps to move forward with five of the seven regional hydrogen hubs, leaving out california's arches hydrogen hub. however, according to the law, at least one regional clean hydrogen hub shall demonstrate the production of clean hydrogen for renewable energy. secretary wright, the five that the department has made the determination to advance do not satisfy that requirement. it seems the determination was blatantly partisan, and in this case seems to have violated the law. will you reverse the decision and fund all of the hydrogen hubs, as required by law?

sec. wright: we review all of the projects in a bottom-up basis. it is not political. all of the hubs have stuff in red states, blue states, they are cross-state endeavors. the west coast projects had particular cost problems. even worse than others. even if you could lower the cost of producing hydrogen, you have to move it somewhere where it can be used or have state regulations where you can build infrastructure. sen. padilla: will you follow up with me in my office to demonstrate how this is superior to the proposals, and as far as the politicization of the process, i will end with this, mr. chairman. i'm reminding not just the chair but the entire committee, the court in city of st. paul explicitly said that defendants, your lawyers, freely admit they made grant determination

decisions primarily if not exclusively based on whether the awardee resided in the states whose citizens voted for president trump in 2024. it is not merit, that is not science. that is politics and it is wrong. thank you, mr. chairman. chair lee: senator cotton. sen. cotton: welcome, mr. secretary. it is time for our annual reminder and public service announcement, the department of energy does many things, but surprisingly the most in thing important thing you do is safeguard and expand our nuclear weapons stockpile. if i'm not mistaken, that is 60% of your total budget, right? sec. wright: that's correct. sen. cotton: this budget request increases to $32.8 billion,

including $27 million more for weapons activities and $570 million for salaries and expenses. can you elaborate on how the budget improves your department's ability to keep our ability on schedule? sec. wright: yes and thank you for your service to our country in the military. we have seven weapons monitors relations going on spread across our weapons laboratories. we want to accelerate those projects to deliver on the program of record. the previous efforts have been slower, have been behind schedule and over budget. we want to change that. not just money is required to change that but attitude, people , and management practices. we need to empower the people who have responsibilities to deliver on those responsibilities. i am very proud of the team we have right now. we also have some facilities , of course, that need upgrading. a lot of this work is done in very old and aging facilities. we are very passionate about we are very passionate about driving these seven weapon modernization programs as quickly as we can while wrapping

up production. weapons delivery and pick production are the highest they have been since the cold war but not high enough. you're on the early stages of a ramp upwards. sen. cotton: you make a good point that money is really important but it is not just money but it is also mindset. the nnsa set up an office to get away from the old way of deploying capabilities. can you describe what your thinking on that and why it is moving toward a quicker approach to get capabilities into the hands of our combat commanders? sec. wright: trying to move it a little bit more like a business. it had just gotten stuck in its ways for too long operating in one fashion. we hired retired admirals, people from the military to say our adversaries are moving quickly, the threats are changing rapidly. we need to look carefully at what we are doing. we definitely made personnel changes. we made management changes and we have set out schedules and

timelines in which there are reviews and meetings saying are we on track and if we are not on track, what is holding us up? what can we do differently? we brought in outside industry and businesses in the appropriate frameworks to move things along faster to share best practices. if we have to build a small facility and it is going to take us x dollars and we could do it for two thirds of that by having a contractor build not a secure nuclear facility but a simple facility, let's do that. just because we have done it that way in the past does not mean we need to do it that way going forward. i have a crew of patriotic americans that are about delivering on time and on spec. sen. cotton: i cannot agree more.

i will take the opportunity of this hearing as i do in the armed services committee when we address this topic to address the critics who say why do we spend so much money on weapons we never used and it is wrong on both accounts. it is a very small percentage. the overall budget includes the budget of the military or your department which is spending money for the first time on modernization projects at higher levels and they are badly needed. second, we use our nuclear weapons every day. there is a reason why there has not been a conflict on the scale of world war ii since we first attained nuclear weapons. i want to look at something closer to home. a very good news story in south arkansas, 19 tons of lithium reserves, more than enough to meet american demand. the last administration provided a $225 million grant to advance lithium extraction. the trump administration has followed up by designating the

project a priority critical mineral project under executive order 14.241 and granting it special designation. i'm aware you have officials in arkansas this week to visit the project. i suspect they will be as impressed as i was. as you build out your strategy what steps can the department take to ensure that products like the southwest arkansas formation which is shovel-ready and commercially validated have continue to permitting support, technical assistance and access to financing tools? sec. wright: again, businesslike practices. we need government to move at the speed of business and this critical minerals off shoring to china and elsewhere has gone on for decades. debt crisis has hit everyone in the face and we are moving as quickly as we can to bring

things back into the united states with business partners that have economics that work and can move quickly. very excited about extracting lithium from the formation. we get almost none of the lithium that we use today in this country. it is a critical metal. we use it in batteries and a number of devices. we have to produce it in america as soon as possible. we don't want to just talk about it. we want to actually do it. sen. cotton: thank you. chair lee: senator cantwell. sen. cantwell: thank you. secretary wright, i was hoping we would get on the same page as it relates to wild stones get

the president's budget has a massive cut suggesting less than what was requested to meet those agreements including some devastation of the 324 building and radioactive leaks at 1000 feet from the columbia river. i am trying to understand is the department intending to seek a modification to the agreement? how do you expect that you can possibly meet those legal requirements with that kind of cut to the timeline? sec. wright: the cuts are modest. they are about efficiency improving. we are not planning to revisit the agreement or not meet the targets.

in fact, our plan is to exceed the targets. you mentioned going to the columbia river, the monitoring of those groundwater things are going on. no change in the scope or the urgency of the project. sen. cantwell: where is the savings coming from because you will become in a long line of energy secretary's. i will create a plaque on my wall that every energy secretary here at my colleague from idaho is laughing because he knows it's true. they said i could do cleanup on the cheap and cut the budget and they basically couldn't and the literal agreement between the federal government and the state is just holding the federal government accountable and it basically gets mad and people come up with the resources. the workforce is definitely disappointed. when you think about the progress that has been made at the plant, now is not the time to short term that. i will go to another subject affecting our economy and that is the high fuel costs. i do not agree with what the president is doing in the middle east but as my colleague from california just said, you are also cutting these programs that are the future for how we get out of this situation. for us, we are a very expensive fuel state. we are large because we are an isolated market. no one is dragging fuel from the atlantic all the way up to the north pacific where we are. it is not going to happen. our fuel comes from alaska and we refine it and we use it for jet fuel. this whole process of us having flights canceled, front page of

the seattle times, because of the high price of jet fuel. the story says that alaska airlines is expected to spend 600 million more dollars in expenses this quarter because of high fuel costs. you can complain about the middle east. i'm not even complaining about the middle east. i am complaining about the fact that you are cutting the hydrogen program and that in the big beautiful bill they cut the sustainable tax credit. so you are really crippling the next generation of jet fuel. i want to hear what your answer is to do you believe in this or do you believe it is continuing to lead as a nation that is going to diversify off of the high cost of jet fuel as a way to have more airlines grow. it is a very big export for us as a country so i want a strong healthy airline industry. i want a strong aviation innovation sector. sec. wright: absolutely and so

do i. so do i. it is frustrating to see higher energy prices now. they are still lower than they were four years ago in the middle of the biden administration. sen. cantwell: i want to stop you there. there is nobody in the northwest who thinks that what is going on right now is ok. not when they wake up and flights are being canceled because of high fuel costs or work in diesel is whatever it is. no one thinks it's ok. sec. wright: i did not say ok. is it cheaper than the biden administration and they will be cheaper as time goes forward. sen. cantwell: things were horrible during katrina but does that still mean we want hurricane devastation or do we want to get in front of them? here we want to say let's diversify our fuel source so we are not so dependent on middle east oil and certainly diversify

off of jet fuel but if you cut the hydrogen hubs and you basically are supportive and that is just what i want to know, are you supportive of this cut that was done to reduce the sustainable aviation fuel tax credit that was done in the big beautiful bill? sec. wright: the sustainable aviation fuels to date are meaningful drivers of upward prices for jet fuel's. we want affordable reliable energy for everyone. we want to have choice in that and as we get better technologies that can drive down the cost of alternative sources, we are all for that. hydrogen hubs had a target production cost of two dollars per kilogram. they could not demonstrate anything on their plan below eight dollars per kilogram. there is a lack of infrastructure to move fuels on the west coast as you said. sen. cantwell: you have been in the private sector and innovation and you know the difference between early tax credits for things that haven't been developed and then the government does.

and long-term stable companies that no longer need the tax credits because the market has been well established. jet fuel the market is not established. if you could for the record write something that says whether you agree with the cut that the non-hydrogen cut that was in the big beautiful bill as it relates to the sustainable aviation tax credit. thank you. chair lee: thank you. senator risch. sen. risch: thank you for visiting with us. i appreciate your remarks on weapons monetization. our oversight role, go out to do our oversight, walk into those buildings and i am blown away by the fact that you walk into a building that was constructed at the time of the nuclear age.

it is incredible that those buildings are still standing, let alone housing one of the most important operations that our government does. appreciate what you can do on that. it certainly needs work. i want to focus on nuclear. as you know idaho is the birthplace of nuclear energy. we are very proud. not only the birthplace but today remains the flagship for nuclear energy. one of the things i want to talk about today is the fact that you know that on or about the fourth of july they are going to go critical with three reactors. that is really appropriate. this is the first time it will happen in the universe just as in december of 1951 when they lit three lightbulbs, it was the first target was done in the universe. it is appropriate it is being done. most americans don't understand this.

number two, they don't have a full comprehension of what that means, that we are actually going to start a micro reactor and put it online. admittedly they are not commercially being produced but they are coming online for the first time. can you give us a very short summary of how this is going to change the world? sec. wright: fantastic, senator. i have had a lifelong passion for nuclear energy. it has not had a great few decades. it has been stagnant but we have things coming together now. a lot of private capital, innovation. a president who signed four executive orders that said whatever is holding back nuclear power, look at it carefully. bring gold standard science and let's let innovation rain. let's let small modular reactors get going again. sen. risch: and it has. sec. wright: and in your great state before july 4 we will have multiple small modular reactors running the entire nuclear systems. you know how to turn that into electricity through a steam turbine. it just won't have the steam turbines on it. we will have the regulatory commission personnel working with us on these permitting processes for these test and demonstration reactors so that they are getting early knowledge and seeing the evolution of

these reactors so we can move quickly to the next phase to license needs to sell commercial electricity. but if we can build something small in a plant, we can drive down the cost of it, we can reduce the time it takes to build them and we are going to dramatically grow american electricity that will be deployable to remote locations or into giant data centers. it is a huge deal and idaho is the central state in this renaissance of nuclear energy as it was in the first chapter of nuclear energy. sen. risch: renaissance is a good term. i have worked in this for decades. as you point out in the recent decades, they had not been good to us. that is behind us. we are moving forward. i am actually stunned by what has happened in recent years with the private sector. capitalists who have money to invest are doing what they are

doing. they recognize that this race to developing the micro reactor is very lucrative, whoever gets there first. start turning the switch on the micro reactor is a big deal. it is important. it can build the parts and put them on the truck and put them together on the site. they will make a lot of money, no question about it. the free enterprise system has recognized that and boy, are they there. the stream of people who come into my office with new technology, new ideas, new ways to do this, is really stunning. that's important and i think the world is going to wake up when this happens. we cannot go into all the details here but we know we have a couple of competitors in russia and china who want to lead us to the marketplace. i think we are there first right now. some of the other details we cannot talk about here but as time goes on we are going to be an aggressive competitor in this marketplace. in the few seconds i have left,

i have been pressing the ark act aggressively. i appreciate you guys getting on board on that. your thoughts on the act briefly. sec. wright: i think it is critical that we put together pieces of legislation like the arc act that enshrines the ability to grow the industry. we should not be complacent about it and i look forward to talking to you more about the arc act. sen. risch: appreciate you coming. chair lee: senator hickenlooper. sen. hickenlooper: secretary, welcome back. i want to start talking about the national laboratory for the rockies, close to both of our hearts. obviously world-class research, analysis, energy, security, grid reliability.

at colorado and alaska campuses, the lab has done a lot of work in terms of the critical mineral supply chains and accelerates a lot of the next generation technology, energy technologies. how are you going forward because we saw the cuts, how do you plan on utilizing the full capabilities and the incredible personnel at the lab to continue that we are the global leader in energy innovation? sec. wright: the national lab in the rockies is indeed fantastic and strong in many of the areas you talked about. grid stability which is key. they are building secure communication facilities from our defense work there. innovation on new materials, on new materials in a new energy technologies for space. it is incredible what is done there.

one thing i should clarify, we are not proposing a reduction in the budget for the office of science. it is just broken into two pieces so it looks like it is a reduction of 19% but it is just pulling out the artificial intelligence in quantum which is work that is going to be done in the national lab of the rockies as a separate line item. we actually propose a 1% growth for the office of science. i am personally very passionate about that and i personally believe the bang for the book on these investments is tremendous. i would happily work with you to move up our investments in science and particularly a.i. and quantum which is enabling technologies for science across all the labs. sen. hickenlooper: so much other work needs to continue. sec. wright: yes.

sen. hickenlooper: i just got a new data point a couple of weeks ago. the snowpack in colorado. i know we have clashed on the urgency around climate change more than once. maybe 20 times, i'm not sure. they do multiple snowpack readings. they have been doing that for 100 years. the average has been 240 inches. 20 feet of snow. the lowest they have ever had. the lowest they have ever had was 182 inches. this year it is 60 inches. that kind of statistical aberration defies explanation unless you look at some sort of disequilibrium. i'm not sure if there are other explanations that can explain something like that than global climate change. sec. wright: global climate change is a slow-moving gradual

phenomenon. when you see a dramatic interruption like that, that is the path of the jet stream last year. we had a cold and snowy east coast and a very warm and dry western u.s. talking about the data sets, we have the database in colorado from 1936. if you look at the entire snowpack over those 89 years of data, it is actually flat to slightly increasing. so we have not seen a climate impact on snow in colorado because colorado is a little bit wetter and warmer. we have a little bit more snow in the fall than we used to and a little bit less in the spring.

but when you talk about anomalous years even just during our lifetime, breckenridge, the 1982 season, was open for four days. it opened on february 5 and close on february 9. no where near as that winter. there are always going to be anomalies in weather. climate is the average trend and in colorado regarding snowpack, it is pretty much flat over the last 90 years if you do the exact line for it, it is a slight increase in colorado snowpack over nine years. but yes we had a terrible year this last year. not quite as bad as the one when i was a kid but a bad snow year. worse in fremont past but that is just one location.

sen. hickenlooper: i will submit my questions in writing because i know the chair rounds the ship with a stiff whip. chair lee: for the record, i have never wielded a whip but i appreciate the consideration nonetheless. senator king has one more question he wants to ask. sen. king: i agree with senator risch. the development of small modular reactors is important. we had a seminar a couple of years ago with a group of 20 people from all over the nuclear industry. the problem with nuclear is cost. the high cost of construction, permitting and all of that. the conclusion was that the first 10 are going to be too expensive and that there needs to be federal support of some form like the chips in science act in order to de-risk the initial construction in order to have a breakthrough in how to develop these things in a cost-effective way. is that something you are thinking about? it is a terribly important development. i am worried it will not have

been relying entirely on the market. sec. wright: i hear your concern, senator king. we have a number of efforts right now to get over that hump. i had one of the large hyper scalars in our office yesterday. one of the things we want to do is have a program where we build 10 reactors altogether. we will do long lead time supply chain orders. sen. king: who is we? sec. wright: the doe is going to be the lead lender but we are going to get equity capital from the hyper scalars. very large corporations that really want nuclear power for their data centers. we are going to spread that risk over 10 of them so that the

average cost of those reactors, it is still going to be more expensive. i think we are going to be able to have with government funding alone, i think we will get the ball going but i share your concerns because they are going to be more expensive and we may need some creative ideas. i hear your concern and i agree. sen. king: thank you. chair lee: senator mccormick. sen. mccormick: thank you for being with us today. you are leading one of the most consequential federal agencies come out at one of the most consequential moments in american history. the congressional justification for the budget calls out three goals. unleashing the golden era of american energy dominance and protecting the nation and

advancing capabilities. i'm glad that pennsylvania is at the forefront of your agenda. we are the second largest producer of natural gas, the third-largest electricity producer of the country, the second largest producer of nuclear power. we have a lot of incredible assets. that energy is providing the power for new manufacturing and electricity generation really helping the president's agenda in terms of winning the a.i. race against china. we are home to the national energy technology lab which i visited and i know you have. i am proud of this work that pennsylvania is doing and it brings me to my questions. last week when you were testifying for the house energy and commerce committee it was announced that doe had completed a review of a number of grants to ensure they provide maximum value to taxpayers. two hydrogen hubs in pennsylvania were on the approved list and they are slated to move forward. those two hubs together are predicted to create 41,000 jobs and drive $11 billion in public private sector investment. will you commit to working with me to ensure those hubs receive

their funding in a timely manner as they look to move forward in the next step of their implementation? sec. wright: absolutely. >> there is no ambiguity about that. sec. wright: there are milestones in these projects. making hydrogen commercially viable is a tough pot but there is upside if we can do it so we are absolutely funding these in phases and we are working with the various contracting groups to see their progress. is it continuing on a pathway to get to a good result and if it does come a fantastic but absolutely we are ready to fund those early phases to get that work going. sen. mccormick: i have been a champion and the chairman and ranking member is very focused on permitting reform. can you talk about the prioritization the

administration is putting on permitting reform? i have this to the president. this is an policy but something like $1.5 trillion of capital on the sidelines that can be accelerated by getting permitting reform across the finish line and getting our economy moving. sec. wright: i agree with that. i had a brief conversation with senator king about that as well. we have bipartisan interest that we have to make it more straightforward and easier to permit things that people can build big things in america again. we only became the superpower in economic superpower that we are because we build big things in this country. we built them time and on budget and we continue to innovate. the last few decades the weaponization of neepa is one example. it made it harder to build things. people said we will build big things overseas and build the little stuff here. that is not good for america. we need to get that done. administration is behind it. senator allen armstrong who i have known for a long time, he has one goal. get permitting reform across the line and it must be bipartisan. it must enable the construction of large things in america.

sen. mccormick: one final question mr. secretary. pennsylvania's nuclear workforce has been a huge part of pennsylvania's success. to achieve the president's goals in terms of quadrupling u.s. nuclear capacity, it will require hundreds of thousands of additional skilled workers on top of the hundreds of thousands of workers in today's fleet. how will this budget proposal support the development of our nation's nuclear workforce and how will this proposed funding close the skills gap which i see in pennsylvania and i'm sure you see everywhere you go? sec. wright: everywhere we see that. it is a constant dialogue i have with all of the hyperscalers. who are the people who are driving the demand for these new power plants? nuclear power plant's, solar plants?

the people driving the demand are the hyperscalers. i point the issue out and they are aware of it. part of the protection plans is to get those developers to invest in those communities for training workers, training people for jobs, operating the plants, using a.i. skills and most importantly all of the trade skills. we need more electricians, plumbers, pipefitters and people who work with steel. it has been a lifelong passion. one of my visits was that junior colleges and trade schools around the country's. the economic message is getting there. it is going to be a raise. we need millions of workers with skills they don't have today. sen. mccormick: thanks for your leadership. chair lee: senator murkowski. sen. murkowski: good to see you mr. secretary. so many good things to talk about on the energy front in alaska. thank you for your leadership and really leaning in on so much of this. i wanted to start my questions first with an area that often times does not get talked about enough and get in alaska when it

comes to meeting our energy needs, hydropower is there. it is steady eddie. it keeps plugging away and we have more potential to do with it. in looking at the budget hydropower funding reduced by 78%. i want to talk to you about where hydropower fits into doe's proposals. i am going to give you some specifics about some 200 47 hydropower incentives that were in place in september of 2024. they got all of the materials. 18 months have passed and we are

still being waiting for funds to be released for a grid resiliency. these are core infrastructure projects in communities that rely significantly on hydropower. can you talk to me more broadly about hydropower and more specifically what might be causing doe and maybe omb to hold up some of these already awarded funds? sec. wright: on the budget, there is not the dramatic cut it looks like. it is different categorizations. we have a new category, baseload power. that is a big line item. that is gas, coal, hydro and nuclear. there is hundreds of millions of dollars in hydro funding there. sen. murkowski: do we need to make sure it is to hydro and hydro does not get eclipsed by the oil, the gas and the coal? that is my concern. i want to make sure hydro is not pushed to the bottom. sec. wright: i agree. we do almost no funding for oil. oil does not need funding. there is research but it is not there. gas is commercially developed. our baseload funding is focused

on hydro, coal and nuclear. those are the ones where we can move the needle with the funding budgets we have. not just me but the department is passionate about hydro. audrey robinson who i'm sure you've met, she is constantly in engaging with hydro developers everywhere. why are these dams going to come down? we are afraid to re-permit them. how can we help you? we need to get that going. sen. murkowski: that is some gun legislation. sec. wright: we need to work together on that. hydro has lost champions. you talk about hydropower but very few people do. and i agree with you. hydropower is critical resource particularly in remote areas. think of all the water flowing in alaska. there is an upside to that. we are looking at repowering. how can you take a 40 megawatt hydro thing and make it into a 50 megawatt hydro thing by just fixing the turbines?

part of the dialogue we had in venezuela is they have these huge assets but the machines are broken. we can get more power out of it. i agree, hydro is important. let's follow up on the specific projects you mentioned because if there is stuff we can do, we are all in on it. sen. murkowski: what we really need is a clear timeline on when the funds can be released so that they do not miss these

upcoming construction season as you mentioned, the costs are going up so if we can work with you on that, we will follow up after this hearing. sec. wright: absolutely.

we have my team sitting behind me. sen. murkowski: let's talk about alaska. everyone is looking to where there are further opportunities for u.s.-based ellen g. we have extraordinary potential up north. you have spent much time there. where do you place the alaska lng project right now in terms of domestic priorities for advancement? sec. wright: for energy infrastructure i would say number one. this is a gigantic project that transforms the state of alaska because people live in south-central alaska and we have an energy problem. we have abundant resources nearby and it is awesome for u.s. allies in asia. it is a short run to all of the major lng consumers in east asia. sen. murkowski: no chokepoint. sec. wright: no chokepoint.

this is really a multi generational mass of america and ally-improving infrastructure project that we are -- not a week goes by that i don't have multiple dialogues about it. it has proven tricky. i wish we were up there right now breaking ground. the problem is the pipeline is hard to finance and you have to build the pipeline first. the lng export terminal is not part to finance, but we cannot finance debt without financing the pipeline. we are working every avenue we can. a growing amount of the team is on it. it is important for the country and critical for alaska. we will not rest until we have that project completed. sen. murkowski: thank you. chair lee: that concludes today's hearing. >> mr. chairman, if i could. chair lee: sure. >> as a former hydro developer i was delighted to hear you refer to hydro as baseload. interestingly the capacity factor is 35% to 50%. wind is 40%. offshore wind is 60%. with hydro you consider baseload, how come you don't consider wind baseload? sec. wright: because the other 50% of hydro, the large-scale hydro has storage and is dispatched. you are right, run of the river hydro is not baseload but the other 50% of hydro resources has resources. >> so you are only talking about storage projects? sec. wright: i'm talking about both. but i'm just saying there is a significant component of hydro that is dispatch a bull. we want to see better better

storage development, we want to see better storage of solar and wind. sen. king: it certainly can be the backup for solar and wind but also grid stabilization, saving expenses for new lines when you can do new storage. do you agree with that? sec. wright: absolutely. we need to see storage grow. it is nowhere near the scale today to really firm wind and solar but it plays a grid management role and the more we can make storage more effective and more cost-effective and more scalable, the broader of a role it can play. sen. king: in texas and california there has been a gigantic buildout of storage which is firming up solar and wind. you know that? sec. wright: i would not say effectively firming up but if you can shift solar demand in the summer time from late in the day to the peak demand a couple of hours later. sen. king: that is how you deal with the duck curve? sec. wright: it is helpful with the duck curve. sen. king: thank you.

chair lee: i want to thank all of my colleagues on the committee for participating today. i want to thank you, mr. secretary, for coming here. members of the committee are free to submit questions for the record until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow. the deadline for submitting statements for the record of today's hearings will be one week from today, april 28 also at 6:00 p.m. thanks again, mr. secretary for being here and for your service. the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2026]

[indistinct conversations]

>> here's a look at some live coverage on wednesday on the c-span networks. starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span, the house gavels in considering bills making changes to the endangered species act with a six year authorization. over on c-span two at 7:00 a.m., members of the british house of commons domestic and foreign policy issues with keir starmer during question time. again, the senate continues to end the current dhs shutdown that began february 14. republicans are using reconciliation to avoid needing votes after most refused to fund ice customs and border protection after the deaths of two u.s. citizens in minnesota. on c-span three at 10:00 a.m., treasury secretary scott bessent testifies on the agency's 2027 budget request. to the senate appropriations committee. at 2:00, hhs secretary robert f.

kennedy, jr. testifies on his department's budget request, calling for more than 15 billion dollars. you can watch these events live on c-span now, our free mobile app, and online at c-span.org. voters in virginia have approved a new redistricting measure that will redraw the districting map and favor in the midterm elections. it passed by a narrow margin following a campaign that received her short -- support from former president barack obama. republican house speaker mike johnson campaigned against the measure. virginia governor abigail spanberger posted the vote result on x. she went on to criticize president trump, saying new maps would push back against the president, who claims he is entitled to new -- to more republican seats in congress. the move in virginia follows last year's decision by the texas legislature